robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
Category talk:Robots in The Combat Robot Hall of Fame
Discussing how to address the Robot Combat Hall of Fame on the wiki Sorry this whole discussion started in such a sudden manner, I admit that Garfie and I were both talking about this earlier today, but then while I was walking around Chicago, I came back to see the job had already been done. Although the way in which the Hall of Fame references were removed was rash, I do think we need to talk about how we should be covering it on the wiki. I don't deny that the Robot Combat Hall of Fame is recognised by a lot of people in the community, and there's no alternative which is more popular, so in that regard, it's relevant to the wiki. However, we're currently recognising the Hall of Fame in the introductory paragraphs and Honours sections of articles, and that bothers me a little more, because the Hall of Fame is in no way associated with Robot Wars. TR2, Gabriel and Eruption get little more than a trivia point for their (much more important) FRA title wins, so is an online voting system seen as more of an "official" honour than winning a season of the live circuit? It especially bothers me to see the HoF so prominently on Razer's article when its many official trophies go unmentioned. It's my personal opinion that we should tone down the importance with which we reference the Hall of Fame, which can be broken down into three categories: *'How the HoF is referenced in the main text' - Currently the honour of a HoF entry goes straight into a robot's opening paragraph, or just the trivia section in some other pages. Personally I would vote against referencing the HoF in the main text for the above reasons, but I'm OK with it being in the trivia section. *'Having a HoF entry in the Honours section' - Definitely remove. It's not a Robot Wars-associated honour. *'The Hall of Fame category' - This one I'm not sure about. It's nice to see all the HoF entries in one place, but ultimately the HoF is not a Robot Wars product, so I don't know if we can excuse it. We're definitely keeping the FRA Champions category though, so I'll see what you guys think. So, putting aside the way the discussion was first started, how should we address the Hall of Fame on the wiki? Try to cover all three of the bullet points. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 04:35, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :We could probably get away with just a trivia point and leave it at that. CrashBash (talk) 06:04, August 20, 2017 (UTC) ::After reading Garfie's reasoning for his edits regarding this matter, I agree with him that the unofficial and subjective nature of the Robot Combat Hall of Fame does not warrant it such a prominent presence on Wiki articles as it does now. Here are my views on each bullet point: ::*Referencing a robot's induction or honourable mention in their Trivia section would be fine. ::*However, I also agree that the RCHoF-related entries in the 'Honours' section should be removed, as they look especially out of place in what is meant to be a Robot Wars-specific section. ::*Lastly, I would personally keep the Hall of Fame-specific categories, purely for organising robots which have inductions or honourable mentions in the Hall of Fame. After all, we have categories for robots from teams that entered BattleBots or Robotica, so I see no difference between those and the Hall of Fame categories in terms of relevance to our Wiki. ::In short, I would still like to see the Hall of Fame mentioned, but nowhere near as much as it is at present because of it being an unofficial list. [[User:VulcansHowl|'Vulcans']][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 09:31, August 20, 2017 (UTC) ::For a very long time I've accepted the CRHOF as a leading authority because it was created by an active and official website (but I suppose the point is what does "official" mean? Active, popular and relevant is probably something, but is it enough to be an honour?) I'll admit I've started thinking about it. ::I think that some of Garfie's examples are silly, and I'll briefly address them here. There's a world of difference between something he as a roboteer would invent on a whim, and something that's been going for almost 15 years run by a website dedicated to robot construction. Are there other websites with similar halls of fame we're neglecting for focus on Team Run Amok's? I would like to see some examples before I accept that statement as fact. ::I will add regarding FRA titles the stance I've always had on FRA - its not accessible to the casual user. The videos can't be broadcast or watched, and there's no context for the titles (though this is somewhat alleviated by many robots appearing on the show). A Robot Hall of Fame (which references robots that everyone knows the feats of) is more accessible. ::However, just because I don't think FRA is accessible, nor do I accept Garfie's arguments about these supposed other websites, doesn't mean I think CRHOF should remain. I agree with these points in principle - and heaven knows that the CRHOF has given us enough grief since we learned about it. I also deem that Trivia should remain and everything else can go. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:39, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :::Here's the thing, though. Wasn't the CRHoF actually invented by a "roboteer on a whim", as you put it? Mark Joerger made it, and he's just a roboteer much like Garfie is (and I don't mean that in a degrading term, of course, I'm just saying there's really no difference between them in terms of where they fit in the RW spectrum). CrashBash (talk) 09:48, August 20, 2017 (UTC) ::::The CRHOF was invented as part of a website which had a purpose other than to be a fan site, and is over 13 years old. If the CRHOF was invented today I'm not sure we'd make any note of it. Garfie wanted to know why him inventing one now is any different. Those are the reasons. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:20, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :::::"If the CRHOF was invented today I'm not sure we'd make any note of it."'' It's this line that I want to focus on. If this whole thing is time based, then that's a horse of a different colour. Lets say Garfie did invent something now. Give it 13 years. Then what? Does that suddenly make it viable? I feel that's a very subjective statement and doesn't really make his claim less valid, TG. CrashBash (talk) 11:10, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :::::If something is not relevant today, then what makes it relevant in the future? - say i make my "Hall of Okishness" and keep it running for 10 years. Does it then become relevant? Or do we regard it for what it is, and being an unofficial, unmerited award - which has even been widely criticised by many roboteers. Its not even a combat robot hall of fame - now Heavies are back on TV, we saw no non-Heavyweights in the top 5 for any category. We also saw no non-TV heavyweights in the top 5 - thats despite how dominant robots like Stanley are in Antweights. Sure its a nice thing to be voted for, but doesnt mean it has any place on a wiki. Whats even more annoying is how prominent it is compared to for example the FRA awards - which is somewhat official. Carbide got best design for 2016, Pulsar Newcomer for 2016, TR2 driver for 2016, Thor aggression for 2016 - not a single mention i believe. Garfie489 (talk) 11:15, August 20, 2017 (UTC) ::::::This is my first time hearing of the FRA awards, and whilst this does derail the topic a whisker, I do think it's worth at least looking into. Do you have a link or something? CrashBash (talk) 12:20, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Sorry i didnt see this comment at the time. All the awards up to 2013 are available on the website under the "Results" section, where they are highly available to the casual viewer /s. The main difference between the FRA awards and the "Hall of Fame" is its recognised by the governing body (duh) and UK roboteers actually vote on it rather not being bothered about it in the slightest. Since 2013 it fell abit out of fashion and last year was the first time it was rerun (though admittedly the website, facebook page ect havnt been updated well this year as theres a movement in power). Garfie489 (talk) 15:14, November 23, 2017 (UTC) I'm not saying this is time based, I'm saying its a factor as to why its different to something you invent now. The CRHOF pre-dated both the Wiki and Facebook and so could be written about and noted. Garfie's example of a hall of okayness is so obviously not worthy of recognition in any circumstances I'm not sure why you keep using it as an example. I'm all for the FRA awards being listed as trivia points too, but I think the consensus is now that non-canon honours should be trivia only. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:39, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :I agree, its totally not worth any recognition...... but its exactly the same scenario as the "Hall of Fame". Ie, the Hall of Fame is totally not worth any recognition, because if you recognise it - you recognise the Hall of Okishness Garfie489 (talk) 12:11, August 20, 2017 (UTC) ::It's not, because one is a recognition of status and the other is a recognition of mediocrity. It would be like awarding "most okay" design. But I'm not going to spend any longer trying to explain why mediocrity isn't something to be celebrated. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:15, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :::I'm absolutely certain the point he's trying to make has nothing to do with a robot being mediocre, TG. He's just using it as a random example. CrashBash (talk) 21:31, August 20, 2017 (UTC) ::::Exactly. Personally i like to use inverse logic to prove a lack of logic in reasoning. Thus my example is extremely silly to show how silly the topic matter in fact is itself. The "Hall of Fame" is otherwise exactly the same as my example, which is deliberately silly - thus its impossible to deny the "Hall of Fame" is in itself silly. So when do we go about nuking it? Garfie489 (talk) 17:32, August 22, 2017 (UTC) :::::Can't say I'm too fussed about the Hall of Fame myself. We don't need it in the Honours List and it certainly doesn't need to be in introductory paragraphs, or even as a trivia point. Personally, I say keep the category and add a minor point about it to the Team Run Amok article if there isn't one already. That's all that's needed. There are obviously some who are interested in it on here and on Reddit though, so I don't think we should just wipe out all knowledge of it from the wiki. [[User:The R A Z 3R|'''Ra'z'3'r']](talk) 22:11, August 22, 2017 (UTC) ::Someone needs to draft a trivia point that can be rolled out to all articles, but the honours and in text references can be removed now. Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::How about this: 'In year, robot was granted full membership into the Combat Robot Hall of Fame/received an Honourable Mention in the Combat Robot Hall of Fame.' That's all that's really needed in my mind, with a link to the site where it says Combat Robot Hall of Fame. We don't even necessarily need this to e honest. [[User:The R A Z 3R|'Ra'z'3'r']](talk) 22:37, August 22, 2017 (UTC) ::::Let's just have the trivia point on robots where it needs to be specified (i.e. which version of Iron-Awe, the unique qualities that Razer and Carbide held in their induction etc), and the rest can let the category do the talking. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 05:53, August 23, 2017 (UTC) :::::I will make a start on removals and adjustments. [[User:VulcansHowl|'Vulcans']][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 08:50, August 23, 2017 (UTC)